So the depression is over?

[Vendzilla]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100920/...bi_ge/us_obama

you have to love this line by Barry

"The first thing you do in a hole is not dig it deeper."

[The Demon]

Obama is a moron. Bernanke is an even bigger moron. We're in a depression that's going to make the Great Depression look like a cakewalk. Obama and Bernanke are speeding it up with their quantitative easing and stimulus bullshit.

[Ethersync]

It's over? Great! Glad that's out of the way...

[CaptainHowdy]

[Caligari]

"Recession pain still real, despite end, Obama says"

To be handed a fucked up economy as Obama was is one thing, but to flat out make these new statements in utter denial of reality and the reality that he hasn't done shit to dig the country out of it's hole if fucking unbelievable.

Does he have connections with Epassport?

On the other hand when you look at the options i.e. the witchcraft...er tea party, things still look pretty lame all around.

Except for the banks and Wall Street.

[Tom_PM]

You know what I bet would solve everything? Tax cuts for the nations wealthiest individuals. And nothing else.

[Ethersync]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

You know what I bet would solve everything? Tax cuts for the nations wealthiest individuals. And nothing else.

You are so far up Obama's ass you have lost the ability to be objective about anything

[The Demon]

Tom is a moron who doesn't understand that tax cuts for the wealthy means an increase in capital investments, which is really the face of a good economy.

[sextoyking]

Originally Posted by The Demon

Tom is a moron who doesn't understand that tax cuts for the wealthy means an increase in capital investments, which is really the face of a good economy.

Trickle down hasn't always worked.....

22 million + jobs under clinton...

We lost something like 8 mill under bush....

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by sextoyking

Trickle down hasn't always worked.....

22 million + jobs under clinton...

We lost something like 8 mill under bush....

We lost jobs under democratic control, after 2006, thats when it went to shit

[Tom_PM]

Originally Posted by Ethersync

You are so far up Obama's ass you have lost the ability to be objective about anything

Yes. Because I disagee with this tea party fear and fervor pile of shit, I am up Obama's ass, lol.

[Tom_PM]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

We lost jobs under democratic control, after 2006, thats when it went to shit

Yes. Because Democrats always ruin everything, and Republicans always fix everything.

Why dont people just see it?

[Ethersync]

Originally Posted by sextoyking

Trickle down hasn't always worked.....

22 million + jobs under clinton...

We lost something like 8 mill under bush....

You are oversimplifying things. Taxes are one factor. Clinton benefited from presiding over a tech bubble that came with the monetization of the Internet and the beginning of the housing bubble. The reality of it all is we never dealt with the first tech bubble crash. The government/Fed tried to paint that over by starting the housing bubble. Now we have the biggest global debt bubble known to man with nothing to artificially re-inflate the economy with. We are looking at around a 30% correction in GDP in the US peak to trough to dig out of this hole and all this stimulus crap is just digging us deeper. If we had just let "too big to fail" fail back in 2008 and sucked it up for a couple years (yes, big unemployment, huge wage cuts, huge government cuts, a big change in standard of living for most people) we would be close to out of this mess now 2 years later with a firm foundation to build from. Unfortunately, our government will probably drag out the misery for a decade or two...

[Atticus]

Originally Posted by sextoyking

Trickle down hasn't always worked.....

22 million + jobs under clinton...

We lost something like 8 mill under bush....

Trickle down doesnt work. What works is trickle up.

You give extra to the wealthy they invest wisely and save. They're wealthy for a reason. You give extra to the poor and they blow it on flat screens, Red Lobster and jewelry. They're poor for a reason.

The poor and middle class stimulate the economy by spending. Those dollars end up in the hands of the wealthy. Either way it's going one place. The difference is if the wealthy receive it through corporate growth they will hire more employees to sustain that growth. If they receive it through handouts there is no need for additional corporate spending (ie: jobs).

[Ethersync]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Yes. Because I disagee with this tea party fear and fervor pile of shit, I am up Obama's ass, lol.

So, you agree with Obama that the recession is over and anyone that says otherwise is a "tea bagger"?

[Ethersync]

Originally Posted by Atticus

Trickle down doesnt work. What works is trickle up.

You give extra to the wealthy they invest wisely and save. They're wealthy for a reason. You give extra to the poor and they blow it on flat screens, Red Lobster and jewelry. They're poor for a reason.

The poor and middle class stimulate the economy by spending. Those dollars end up in the hands of the wealthy. Either way it's going one place. The difference is if the wealthy receive it through corporate growth they will hire more employees to sustain that growth. If they receive it through handouts there is no need for additional corporate spending (ie: jobs).

I think the idea is that tax breaks for the wealthy (who pay most of the tax anyways) equals more investment in companies that give jobs to the poor and middle class so they have money to to blow on flat screen televisions. Also, the whole idea of rampant spending being necessary to stimulate the economy is the same as saying that the best way for a heroin addict to deal with his addiction is to have an ample supply of heroin always at hand.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Yes. Because Democrats always ruin everything, and Republicans always fix everything.

Why dont people just see it?

Not at all , I think the democrats fucked things up since 2006 and they need to be stopped, the only conclusion is getting the gop in there

[over38]

My StatsRemote says no.............

[Slappin Fish]

Technically the recession is over, the US economy will grow a little over 2.5 percent this year.

But what Obama said is that "For the millions of people who are out of work or otherwise struggling, "it's still very real for them."

He is agreeing with you, for the average American the recession is still here.

he is saying exactly what you are saying. you still manage to hate on Obama

[Atticus]

Originally Posted by Ethersync

I think the idea is that tax breaks for the wealthy (who pay most of the tax anyways) equals more investment in companies that give jobs to the poor and middle class so they have money to to blow on flat screen televisions. Also, the whole idea of rampant spending being necessary to stimulate the economy is the same as saying that the best way for a heroin addict to deal with his addiction is to have an ample supply of heroin always at hand.

Yes, I know the theory behind trickle down economics but my point is that doesnt work. When the wealthy get a handout (tax breaks) they dont invest that back into additional jobs. The money stays at the top.

When the poor/middle class get a handout (tax breaks, stimulus) they spend it. This increases revenue for the wealthy and that increased revenue forces the corporations to invest in additional employees.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

You know what I bet would solve everything? Tax cuts for the nations wealthiest individuals. And nothing else.

that got tried during the great depression, and it didn't work, they went from 25% in 1932 to 63%. I'm believeing you only care what Barry tells you, but these are facts, go ahead and ignore them as you always have

source: http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n...epression.html

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by Slappin Fish

Technically the recession is over, the US economy will grow a little over 2.5 percent this year.

But what Obama said is that "For the millions of people who are out of work or otherwise struggling, "it's still very real for them."

He is agreeing with you, for the average American the recession is still here.

he is saying exactly what you are saying. you still manage to hate on Obama

I hate Obama because he's an idiot
I never said he said the recession is over, if you read the article, it says economist said that, not him.
I commented on the bigger hole theory
But the facts mean nothing to you so disregard what I said and the facts

[TheSenator]

The first people out of the recession were the big corporation. Mainstream mom and pop shops are still feeling the pinch. The poor never new the difference except that their benefits increased.

The middle class is gonna be fucked for a long time.

[sicone]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

We lost jobs under democratic control, after 2006, thats when it went to shit

Wow, thanks for the education there... I thought it was somewhere around 2002 when we started pouring millions of dollars daily into invading the Middle East. Remember when the gas prices tripled?

Save the 'but there are still xxx number of troops over there cuz of Obama' I know you know better then that so try and come up with a better reply. I mean after all, who was President when we went in guns blazing. (I'll give you a hint... His daddy tried the same thing about 10 yrs before that and failed, so the second time around he made sure it was a epic fail)

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by sextoyking

Trickle down hasn't always worked.....

22 million + jobs under clinton...

We lost something like 8 mill under bush....

I didn't say it always worked, but it does more often than not. The rich DO invest heavily, hence capital investments which are the foundation behind supply side economics.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by Slappin Fish

Technically the recession is over, the US economy will grow a little over 2.5 percent this year.

But what Obama said is that "For the millions of people who are out of work or otherwise struggling, "it's still very real for them."

He is agreeing with you, for the average American the recession is still here.

he is saying exactly what you are saying. you still manage to hate on Obama

No you reject. Technically the recession isn't over because we're in a depression. Artificial growth is meaningless because it's just that.. Artificial. Consumer confidence is shit, the dollar is shit, consumer spending is shit, corporate cash balance sheets are rising which means they aren't hiring, the average workweek hasn't improved. Read a book.

[TheDoc]

Yeah man, the depression ended like 70 years ago.

[marketsmart]

Originally Posted by The Demon

tax cuts for the wealthy means an increase in capital investments, which is really the face of a good economy.

no it does not and this has been proven...

anyway, i hope their is a shift in power so you people can see that neither party has the fix...


yahoo for me though, i just bought another $160,000 rental property for $32,000 and going to look at an $80,000 section 8 for $15,000....

i am loving this democrat controlled govt...





.

[Slappin Fish]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

I hate Obama because he's an idiot
I never said he said the recession is over, if you read the article, it says economist said that, not him.
I commented on the bigger hole theory
But the facts mean nothing to you so disregard what I said and the facts

Are you the Demon in disguise? I thought you were better than that

If you are all about facts why did you confuse depression and recession in your title, didn't the economist say recession?

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by Slappin Fish

Are you the Demon in disguise? I thought you were better than that

If you are all about facts why did you confuse depression and recession in your title, didn't the economist say recession?

Who is confusing depression and recession? I clearly stated that we aren't in a recession but in a depression. Learn to read before making a fool out of yourself.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by marketsmart

no it does not and this has been proven...

I'm glad you brought proof that this has been proven. Oh wait... How predictable.

yahoo for me though, i just bought another $160,000 rental property for $32,000 and going to look at an $80,000 section 8 for $15,000....

i am loving this democrat controlled govt...

Yea, you're going to love it even more when your dollar isn't worth anything and the real estate market finally hits rock bottom.

[SallyRand]

Originally Posted by Atticus

Trickle down doesnt work. What works is trickle up.

You give extra to the wealthy they invest wisely and save. They're wealthy for a reason. You give extra to the poor and they blow it on flat screens, Red Lobster and jewelry. They're poor for a reason.

The poor and middle class stimulate the economy by spending. Those dollars end up in the hands of the wealthy. Either way it's going one place. The difference is if the wealthy receive it through corporate growth they will hire more employees to sustain that growth. If they receive it through handouts there is no need for additional corporate spending (ie: jobs).

Good Lord, you didn't sleep through class! One of the most insightful posts I've seen on GFY!

Sally.

[cwd]

wait, there was a depression?

[Slappin Fish]

Originally Posted by The Demon

Who is confusing depression and recession? I clearly stated that we aren't in a recession but in a depression. Learn to read before making a fool out of yourself.

I was answering Vendzilla.

And you are telling others to learn how to read

[GregE]

Originally Posted by Ethersync

It's over? Great! Glad that's out of the way...

If Obama was a little more on the ball, he wouldn't be crowing about these meaningless (in real terms) numbers.

Instead, he should merely describe this news as a good indication that things will get better for the average American in the not too distant future.

Even that would be a bullshit response, but at least it would be a tad more believable.

What he's doing here is just plain dumb.

The surest way for any leader to commit political suicide is to insult the voters intelligence in an election year.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by The Demon

I'm glad you brought proof that this has been proven. Oh wait... How predictable.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...dy-s-says.html

"Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody’s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell."

"When the first Bush tax cuts were signed into law in June 2001, pushing the top rate down to 35 percent, the wealthy boosted savings. The saving rate climbed to 2.8 percent in the first quarter of 2002 from minus 2 percent in the second quarter of 2001. The increased savings coincided with a 1.1 percent decline in the S&P 500 index."

This isn't the first study, test, history to prove that taxing the rich does not create more investments or grow the eco, at all. That isn't to say it doesn't have positives in some areas, but investments, job creation, etc is not one of them. Those take a different type incentive, ones that don't benefit the person but the corporation.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by sicone

Wow, thanks for the education there... I thought it was somewhere around 2002 when we started pouring millions of dollars daily into invading the Middle East. Remember when the gas prices tripled?

Save the 'but there are still xxx number of troops over there cuz of Obama' I know you know better then that so try and come up with a better reply. I mean after all, who was President when we went in guns blazing. (I'll give you a hint... His daddy tried the same thing about 10 yrs before that and failed, so the second time around he made sure it was a epic fail)

Come on Dan, where did I say anything about the war, I have a daughter in the military, please once tell me where I can find where I ever posted I like the wars? I bitch because we still have 50k troops there, sorry, thats how I feel
Gas prices went to $5 a gallon in our area under the democrats control of the house and senate, so yes I remember
I remember the shit SR did, I also remember the shit Clinton did like

Dec. 18, 1998 - As U.S. warplanes drop bombs over Baghdad, the House begins debating articles of impeachment against President Clinton.

So tell me, what does this have to do with the economy and this thread?

Originally Posted by Slappin Fish

Are you the Demon in disguise? I thought you were better than that

If you are all about facts why did you confuse depression and recession in your title, didn't the economist say recession?

Is that the best you can do? I stated that it's been tried before, they raised the top rate to help the economy, it didn't work you fucking moron. Is that plain enough for you?

[FetishWeb]

Awesome time to be alive, comrade.

You have the media and government in sympatico denying there's even a recession for 2 years followed by 2 years of them announcing every week that the recession is over.

[B2BwithJoeD]

Similar link: http://www.justnews.com/money/250827...09460109202010

Same message = 'recession' over...

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...dy-s-says.html

"Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody’s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell."

"When the first Bush tax cuts were signed into law in June 2001, pushing the top rate down to 35 percent, the wealthy boosted savings. The saving rate climbed to 2.8 percent in the first quarter of 2002 from minus 2 percent in the second quarter of 2001. The increased savings coincided with a 1.1 percent decline in the S&P 500 index."

This isn't the first study, test, history to prove that taxing the rich does not create more investments or grow the eco, at all. That isn't to say it doesn't have positives in some areas, but investments, job creation, etc is not one of them. Those take a different type incentive, ones that don't benefit the person but the corporation.

Honestly, have you any idea what is going on here? Do you understand economics? And I'm not talking about mainstream "spending is the answer" Keynesian bullshit. Your entire post proved my point, completely. Tax cuts for the rich increase savings for those rich. Savings in the form of savings account, stocks, etc, increase capital investments, which ultimately boost the economy. Supply Side Economics is what works for this countr
y and others. Demand side economics/Keynesian economics have never truly worked because they are based on fundamental flaws.


Here you go doc.

http://tutor2u.net/economics/revisio...-spending.html

AS Macroeconomics / International Economy
Capital Investment and Spending


Investment is spending by UK firms on capital goods such as new factories, plant or buildings, machinery & vehicles. It is an important component of demand, but as we shall see, it also has an impact on the supply-side of the economy.

Definition of Capital Investment

* Capital investment is defined as spending on capital goods such as new machinery, buildings and technology so that the economy can produce more consumer goods in the future.
* A broader definition of investment would encompass spending on improving the human capital of the workforce - for example extra investment in training and education to improve the skills and competences of workers.
* Most economists agree that investment is vital to promoting long-run economic growth through improvements in productivity and a country’s productive capacity.

Gross and Net Investment

Gross investment spending includes an estimate for capital depreciation since some investment is needed to replace technologically obsolete plant and machinery. Providing that net investment is positive, businesses are expanding their capital stock giving them a higher productive capacity and therefore meet a higher level of demand in the future.

The Economic Importance of Capital Investment

Firms often invest in new capital goods to exploit internal economies of scale. This, together with technological advances that are often built into new machinery, is vital to improving the UK's competitiveness and to causing an outward shift in the country’s production possibility frontier.

Firms often invest in new capital goods to exploit internal economies of scale.

The amount of capital equipment available for each worker to use and whether this capital is up to date has a bearing on the productivity of the labour force. The quality of business training also matters to make the most of investment in new capital and technology



Outward shift in the production possibility frontier

In the short run, devoting more a country’s scarce resources to the production of investment goods (a process known as capital accumulation) might require a reduction in today’s output of consumer goods and services (lower consumption would be accompanied by a rise in saving). The re-allocation of resources towards capital goods would be shown by a movement from point A to B on the production possibility frontier.

But if the extra investment is successful and leads to an increase in a country’s productive capacity then the PPF can shift out and open up the potential for an increased output of consumption goods to meet people’s needs and wants. This is shown by a movement from point B on the PPF to point C which lies on the new PPF after the effects of an increase in investment.

Investment affects AD as well as Aggregate Supply (AS)

It should be remembered that investment is also a component of AD. Businesses involved in developing, manufacturing, testing, distributing and marketing the capital goods themselves stand to benefit from increased orders for new plant and machinery.

A rise in capital investment will therefore have important effects on both the demand and supply-side of the economy – including a positive multiplier effect on national income.

* Demand side effects: Increase spending on capital goods – affects industries that manufacture the technology / hardware / construction sector
* Supply side effects: Investment is linked to higher productivity, an expansion of a country’s productive capacity, a reduction in unit costs (e.g. through the exploitation of economies of scale) – and therefore a source of an increase in LRAS (trend growth)



Investment affects AD as well as Aggregate Supply (AS)

It is not just the level of capital investment which is important but also the quality of the increase in the capital stock. A high level of investment on its own may not be sufficient to create an increase in LRAS – workers need to be trained to work the new machinery and there may be time lags between new capital spending and the knock-on effects on output and productivity in particular. Also, if there is insufficient demand in a market, a high level of capital investment may lead to excess capacity emerging in industries – putting downward pressure on prices and profits

Gross capital fixed investment by business
One way to remember the importance of investment is to consider the 3 Cs - capacity, costs and competitiveness. Higher investment should allow British businesses to lower their production costs per unit, increase their supply capacity and become more competitive in overseas markets.

Key Factors Determining Capital Investment Spending

Several factors influence how much businesses are prepared to commit to investment projects:

* Real interest rates: Interest rates affect the cost of borrowing money to finance investment. If the rate of interest increases, the cost of funding investment increases, reducing the expected rate of return on capital projects. A second factor is that higher interest rates raise the opportunity cost of using profits to finance investment – i.e. a business might decide that the cost of financing new capital is too high and that it could earn a higher rate of return by simply investing the cash. Low interest rates are not always good news for business investment. Recently economists have become concerned that low interest rates has reduced the cost of capital for businesses to such an extent that some low quality capital investment projects have been given the go ahead and much of this investment has proved to be disappointing.
* The rate of growth of demand: Investment tends to be stronger when consumer demand is rising, giving businesses an extra incentive to invest to expand their capacity to meet this demand. Higher expected sales also increase potential profits – in other words, the price mechanism should allocate extra funds and factor inputs towards investment goods into those markets where consumer demand is rising.
* Corporate taxes: Corporation tax is paid on profits. If the government reduces the rate of corporation tax (or increases investment tax-allowances) there is a greater incentive to invest. Britain has relatively low rates of company taxation compared to other countries inside the EU. This is a factor that helps to explain why Britain has been a favoured venue for inward investment from overseas during the last decade.

* Technological change and degree of market competition: In markets where technological change is rapid, companies may have to commit themselves to higher levels of investment to keep pace with the shifting frontier of technology and remain competitive. In markets where there is a premium on a business keeping costs down but at the same time, achieving year on year gains in efficiency and quality of service, there is also an incentive to keep capital investment spending high.
* Business confidence: Business confidence can be vital in determining whether to go ahead with an investment project. When confidence is strong then planned investment will rise. The Confederation of British Industry (www.cbi.org.uk) publishes a quarterly survey of confidence that gives economists an insight into likely trends in investment from manufacturing industry – although it must be remembered that over 70% of total GDP now comes from the service sector. In recent years, capital spending by service businesses has grown strongly – but manufacturing investment has weakened.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...dy-s-says.html

"Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody?s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell."

"When the first Bush tax cuts were signed into law in June 2001, pushing the top rate down to 35 percent, the wealthy boosted savings. The saving rate climbed to 2.8 percent in the first quarter of 2002 from minus 2 percent in the second quarter of 2001. The increased savings coincided with a 1.1 percent decline in the S&P 500 index."

This isn't the first study, test, history to prove that taxing the rich does not create more investments or grow the eco, at all. That isn't to say it doesn't have positives in some areas, but investments, job creation, etc is not one of them. Those take a different type incentive, ones that don't benefit the person but the corporation.

Do me a favor, expand your research to the last 100 years of tax rates for the top 1% and come back and tell us how the economy fared during the low times and the high times

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n...epression.html

Raising the tax for the top people had no help for the economy, in fact, lowering it had a positive impact after 1963 when it got lowered from 88 to 70%

[SallyRand]

Originally Posted by GregE

If Obama was a little more on the ball, he wouldn't be crowing about these meaningless (in real terms) numbers.

Instead, he should merely describe this news as a good indication that things will get better for the average American in the not too distant future.

Even that would be a bullshit response, but at least it would be a tad more believable.

What he's doing here is just plain dumb.

The surest way for any leader to commit political suicide is to insult the voters intelligence in an election year.

Maybe if Obama was less of a lying scumbag?

Sally.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Do me a favor, expand your research to the last 100 years of tax rates for the top 1% and come back and tell us how the economy fared during the low times and the high times

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n...epression.html

Raising the tax for the top people had no help for the economy, in fact, lowering it had a positive impact after 1963 when it got lowered from 88 to 70%

Which is still double what it is today...and it had a reason to be that high and come down. In the last 30 years though we can look and compare the rates, they are within a small range of each other. We know that cutting it to low sky rockets the deficit and doesn't actually spark investing/corp growth when the benefit is at the person level and to high can stall personal/corp economic growth all together. Which isn't were we are at today, at all.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by The Demon

Honestly, have you any idea what is going on here? Do you understand economics? And I'm not talking about mainstream "spending is the answer" Keynesian bullshit. Your entire post proved my point, completely. Tax cuts for the rich increase savings for those rich. Savings in the form of savings account, stocks, etc, increase capital investments, which ultimately boost the economy. Supply Side Economics is what works for this countr
y and others. Demand side economics/Keynesian economics have never truly worked because they are based on fundamental flaws.


Here you go doc.

http://tutor2u.net/economics/revisio...-spending.html

Great article on UK Firms... however in America with our personal tax rates, tax system and setup, things worked out a bit differently. That's the American History that was shared with you.

You asked for proof, it was provided... Lowering taxes did not spark economic growth, it did not spark new found investments, job growth, etc. The rich saved the money for a rainy day - I don't discredit that it's a good thing to save money, I'm sure some use it too - I did however provide proof that them saving does not equal growth in the areas you stated.

And again, I'm not saying it's not a good thing but I am saying it doesn't create the one sided benefits you appear it to create.

P.S. I don't care about your fake economic studies.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Which is still double what it is today...and it had a reason to be that high and come down. In the last 30 years though we can look and compare the rates, they are within a small range of each other. We know that cutting it to low sky rockets the deficit and doesn't actually spark investing/corp growth when the benefit is at the person level and to high can stall personal/corp economic growth all together. Which isn't were we are at today, at all.

You mean like the 3 trillion dollars Barry spent without caring where the money went?
It's really helped the economy and job growth hasn't it?
So now he want to raise their taxes to pay for his fuck up
from 1963 on, the top rate payers had some relief and it worked out pretty good for this country, are you denying that?

[Slappin Fish]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Is that the best you can do? I stated that it's been tried before, they raised the top rate to help the economy, it didn't work you fucking moron. Is that plain enough for you?

You are angry

I understand. I wouldn't like being compared to The Demon either.

[marketsmart]

you will always find data to back up your opinion because there is always a pro and a con viewpoint...

we are going through something that has never been seen before and you knuckleheads are looking at solutions of the past..

this is the same reason why bernanke and paulson were/are such idiots.. they are using economic principles of the early 1900's to restart the economy...

i have changed my mind about a double dip though and dont think we will see it. i think we will see the economy remain unchanged for the next 10 years and unemployment will remain the same...

like i said before, i hope the republicans take control in november, so all you monkeys can see that it wont make a difference.. of course you will still blame it all on obama and even if a republican gets elected and the end of his 1st term, you will be blaming him when your new chief cant get the job done...

at least you guys are providing a great laugh...




.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

You mean like the 3 trillion dollars Barry spent without caring where the money went?
It's really helped the economy and job growth hasn't it?
So now he want to raise their taxes to pay for his fuck up
from 1963 on, the top rate payers had some relief and it worked out pretty good for this country, are you denying that?

As pointed out many times now Obama has not spent 3 trillion dollars. You and nobody here can show were Obama himself spent 3 trillion dollars. BTW, I want to see what he spent it on, not an article saying he spent it. I know were the 3-t came from, and it wasn't Obama that did it.

The 400b Obama has spent with the stimulus on the eco/job growth, state funded things, teachers, police, fire, etc - yes, it greatly helped and is without question. Did it sky rocket/change, turn us completely around. No - but it damn sure helped in other areas.

No, he wants to raise the taxes because it didn't spark economic growth, it increased the deficit, and years and years and years of wars has to be paid for, just like when the tax rate was 88% or whatever. Be glad though he isn't increasing taxes, just removing a tax break that didn't work.

The tax rate in 1963 was 91% in 75 it was 70% in 93-2000 it was 39%. I would say 39% seems to be a pretty damn good to me, yes..

[cwd]

Originally Posted by marketsmart

you will always find data to back up your opinion because there is always a pro and a con viewpoint...

we are going through something that has never been seen before and you knuckleheads are looking at solutions of the past..

this is the same reason why bernanke and paulson were/are such idiots.. they are using economic principles of the early 1900's to restart the economy...

i have changed my mind about a double dip though and dont think we will see it. i think we will see the economy remain unchanged for the next 10 years and unemployment will remain the same...

like i said before, i hope the republicans take control in november, so all you monkeys can see that it wont make a difference.. of course you will still blame it all on obama and even if a republican gets elected and the end of his 1st term, you will be blaming him when your new chief cant get the job done...

at least you guys are providing a great laugh...

the guy with the blood splattered all over his face is making the most sense....I think its time for me to go home...

[sicone]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Come on Dan, where did I say anything about the war, I have a daughter in the military, please once tell me where I can find where I ever posted I like the wars? I bitch because we still have 50k troops there, sorry, thats how I feel
Gas prices went to $5 a gallon in our area under the democrats control of the house and senate, so yes I remember
I remember the shit SR did, I also remember the shit Clinton did like

Dec. 18, 1998 - As U.S. warplanes drop bombs over Baghdad, the House begins debating articles of impeachment against President Clinton.

So tell me, what does this have to do with the economy and this thread?

Never said you claimed to like war, and I don't have to go far to find where you talk about the war, in fact you do that in this very post.

Yes you have bitched many times about there still being troops over there, I'll stand right next to you and bitch about that. Where we disagree is who/what you blame for the troops still being there. Again, who sent us to war in multiple countries at once? Was it Obama or Bush?

At least Obama has set into motion the plan of action to bring them home, if McCain had won, we'd have more then triple that number of troops over there. That was his plan as he stated during his campaign.

When did the democrats take over the house... according to you it was in 2006. Gas prices skyrocketed in the yrs preceding that, based on the simple logic of the following, if the Dems took over in 06, then before 06 it was the Republicans in charge.

Do you remember the Economy under Clinton.. it was booming, national deficit was at a all time low. Republicans bitched because they felt we had a weak military, and yes I know Clinton cut way back on military budgets and so forth. Bush jr comes in and starts to build the military back up, re-directing as many funds towards that as he can scam. And to show the world we are still have the military might to match our swagger he does what?

Oh yeah, sends us into multiple wars where we get our ass's handed to us, both over there and here at home. The economy has been in decline since we invaded.

Now, what does the war have to do with the economy? 1st, is that a actual serious question or is my sarcasm meter broken today?

Maybe the 7 trillion+ we have spent moving sand from one pile to another